Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-09-1984 Adopted CC MinREGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 9, 1984 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday~ January 9~ 1984 in 'the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor Peter Snyder. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Drena, Hegarty, Jefferys Moffatt and Mayor Snyder. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of alleg- iance to the flag CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Hegarty~ seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous votes the following were approved: Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 10s 1983 and Adjourned Regular Meeting of October 20, 1983~ Warrant Register~in the amount of $228,051.08; Financial Report for Period Ending November 30, 1983; adopted RESOLUTION NO. 01 - 84 APPROVING THE STREET NAME CHANGE: DENISE COURT TO SHANNON COURT - TRACT 4569; adopted RESOLUTION NO. 02-84 ESTABLISHING A 'MINORITY ENTERPRISE PROGRAM AND SETTING GOALS FOR THIS PROGRAM~ authorized attendance of Police Chief Shores, Sergeant Hillman and Paul Rankin at Disaster Preparedness Seminar in Emmitsburgr MD in Augusts 1984 "THE DUBLIN RUN" - January 22r 1984 Dublin High School has scheduled a 10 Kilometer race, called "The Dublin Run" at 9:00 a.m. on January 22, 1984. Since the race is to occur on Dublin City streets, a parade permit and $60 00 permit fee is required under Dublin City Ordinance 5-16 0. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council granted the permit and waived the fee. CM-3-1 Regular Meeting January 9~ 1984 adopted RESOLUTION NO. 03 - 84 DECLARING JANUARY 22, 1984 AS THE DAY OF "THE DUBLIN RUN" Mr. Tom Cathcart, representing Dublin High School addressed the Council and presented a T'shirt to Mayor Snyder, as starter of the race. Mr. Cathcart thanked the Council for their support of this event. TRI-VALLEY CABLE TELEVISION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP REQUEST FROM CITY OF SAN RAMON The City of Dublin presently participates with the Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton on the Tri-Valley Cable Television Advisory Committee. The Committee membership is presently comprised of nine (9) members, with three (3) members appointed from each respective jurisdiction. The purpose of the Committee is to advise each of the Cities on matters related to cable television. The City has received a request from the City of San Ramon for full voting membership on the Tri-Valley Cable Television Advisory Committee. if approved by 'those agencies presently participating on the Committee, the Committee's membership would be increased to twelve (12). The City of San Ramon is also provided cable television service by Viacom. Authorization by each of three Cities presently represented on the Committee is necessary in order to permit the City of San Ramon's participation on the Committee. Cm. Jeffery questioned effectiveness of a Committee of this size, and felt it might be appropriate to cut the size. Cm. Drena felt the number to be appropriate, in that not every representative attends every meeting. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council felt the City of San Ramon should have representation on this Committee. Cm. Drena brought before the Council pending legislation which required a stance on the part of the Council as soon as possible. The Cable Television Advisory Committee, as well as the League of California Cities were recommending opposition to the pending bill. Staff was directed to call Congressman Stark's office to determine when Congress would consider this particular bill and then, if necessary due to time constraints, the City could send a telegram in opposition. CM-3-2 Regular Meeting January 9, 1984 SHANNON COMMUNITY CENTER LEASE COMMUNICATION FROM CITY PARKS'& RECREATION COMMISSION At its meeting of December 13~ 1983, 'the Dublin Parks & Recreation Commission requested that the City Council provide the Commission with direction regarding the expiration of the Shannon Community Center lease. Staff has contacted the Dublin San Ramon Services District regarding the Shannon Community Center. The District indicated that the present lease agreement between the District and the San Ramon Valley Community Center Corporation will expire on June 30, 1984. The District's General Manager has indicated that it would be desirable for the City to submit a proposal for leasing the Shannon Center prior to April 1~ 1984. The Commission wanted to ascertain if the City Council wished the Commission to begin investigating the terms and costs of assuming the lease for the Shannon Community Center. On motion of Cm. Jefferyf seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized the Park & Recreation Commission to take whatever steps are necessary to pursue the possible lease of Shannon Community Center. ORDINANCE REGULATING ELECTION CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS At its meeting of December 12, 1983, Councilmember Drena requested Staff to prepare an ordinance which would limit campaign contributions made to candidates for municipal office for City Council consideration. The City Attorney prepared and presented a draft ordinance with two major features. The first would limit campaign contributions made to any one candidate to fifty dollars ($50.00). The second requires the source of all contributions in excess of ten dollars ($10.00) to be disclosed. The present campaign contribution disclosure amount is $100.00 as established by State law. State law does not limit the amount of campaign contributions any candidate may receive. Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Ms. Ann Henderson supported a limitation on contributions, but felt that perhaps $10 might be a little low. Ms. Lenora Holmes~ speaking on behalf of Lizbeth Howard, read a letter supporting limitations. Ms. Lenora Holmes stated she didn't feel any one group has a right to control city government. John Schmitt supported the limitation and stated he preferred to see the candidates facing the people where anyone can ask the candidate questions. CM-3-3 Regular Meeting January 9, 1984 Ms. Liz Schmitt encouraged some type of limitation on spending. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. Cm. Hegarty felt Dublin was adequately covered by the state law, and hesitated to put in another law telling people they are restricted by yet another law. He further felt the $10 reporting limit would be very cumbersome from a bookkeeping standpoint. Cm. Moffatt felt the idea was good, ethically, but he had problems putting caps on things. He stated he was basically against this ordinance due to the many loopholes. Cm. Jeffery stated she liked the $50 limit, but felt $25 would be more appropriate for reporting purposes. Mayor Snyder indicated that although he had a problem putting a cap on donations, he had a greater problem with the $10 reporting figure. He felt $25 would be more realistic. Cm. Moffatt questioned who would enforce violations of -this ordinance. The City Attorney explained that it would be the responsibility of the filing officer to report any infractions to the District Attorney's office. There would be no discretion insofar as if an infraction occurs, it would have to be reported. Section 3 (c) was discussed and changed to add "nor shall said prohibition apply to contributions made by candidates to their own campaign for payment of filing fee and candidate statement". A motion was made by Cm. Drena and seconded by Cm. Jeffery to waive reading and adopt the ordinance, changing 3c as discussed, change reporting amount to $25.01 and setting cap at $50 per individual contribution. This motion was defeated due to NO votes cast by Cm. Hegarty, Cm. Moffatt and Mayor Snyder. Cm. Drena discussed changing the cap. Tom McCormick questioned Cm. Drena being able to change the amounts in this ordinance without going through another public hearing. City Attorney Nave explained that the same ordinance was being discussed, and the Mayor, should he so desire, could reopen the public hearing. Mayor Snyder reopened the public hearing. Tom McCormick felt that a bidding process was unnecessary and expressed embarrasment on behalf of the Council that they would do this. He felt that since the amounts were being changed, the matter warranted further study on the part of the City Attorney. The City Attorney explained that in order for this ordinance to pertain to the upcoming election, the issue must be resolved at this meeting. CM-3-4 Regular Meeting January 9, 1984 John Schmitt stated he felt the basics needed to be handled and resolved now, while they are still basics. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Drena, seconded by Cm. Jeffery and by majority vote, the reading was waived, and the ordinance was adopted with changes to 3c as discussed, raising the reportable amount to $25.01 and setting a cap of $100 per individual contribution. Voting NO on this motion were Cm. Hegarty and Cm. Moffatt. ORDINANCE NO. 1 - 84 REGULATING ELECTION CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES BART LIVERMORE-PLEASANTON EXTENSION STUDY UPDATE ANALYSIS FINAL REPORT The City Council has previously taken a position with respect to the BART Extension Study as it impacts the City of Dublin, as indicated in the letter of October 26, 1983 which the City Council approved and sent to the BART staff. In addition, during the General Plan study sessions~ the City Council reemphasized its desire to coordinate development with a BART parking lot for the station site proposed in downtown Dublin. Since the City Council's last discussion of this item, the City has received a letter from Robert Allen, Director~ District 5, Bay Area Rapid Transit District, requesting the City to freeze development for the next 9 months in the area of the proposed station site. The City has also received a letter from Ben Fernandez on behalf of a joint chamber of commerce committee from the Cities of Pleasanton, Livermore and Dublin indicating the positions of 'the three chambers of commerce with respect to 'the BART extensions to the Tri-Valley Area. BART's final report does not make a recommendation with respect to the route most desirable once the rail system leaves the City of Dublin. The report identifies two basic route alternatives from Hopyard Road to the east. The final report also recognizes some of 'the concerns that the City Council expressed in its letter of October 26, 1983 with respect to the parking lot' location at the Dublin station to the north of the freeway. However, no firm recommendations are made in the report with respect to ultimate configuration of the station site. Staff asked that Council review its position letter of October 26, 1983 to determine whether or not it still accurately reflects the City's position. The City Council discussed Director Allen's request to freeze development in the area of the proposed Dublin station site. It was pointed out that Director Allen's request is a personal one and was not written on behalf of the entire BART Board of Directors. CM-3-5 Regular Meeting January 9, 1984 Cm. Jeffery questioned the figures used by BART and if they were up-to-date. Cm. Jeffery also relayed that she felt the October 26~ 1983 letter to be adequate with regard to the City Council's position. Discussion was held regarding the freezing of land for the potential BART station site location. Consensus of Council was that freezing the land was not an appropriate action and if BART was serious, perhaps they shOuld buy the land now and place a park & ride lot on the site until development of the station occurs in the future. City Manager Ambrose and Cm. Jeffery will be in attendance representing Dublin at the January 17th public meeting. RECESS A short recess was called. Ail Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened. AWARD OF BID - CONTRACT #83-2 DUBLIN BOULEVARD/AMADOR PLAZA ROAD TRAFFIC SIGNAL This projec't was approved as part of the 1983-84 Capital Improvement Budget. Subsequently the City Council authorized Staff to advertise for bids on this project. The City received four bids on this project ranging from $72~837 to $82,948. The lowest bid was receiVed from Rosenden Electric in the amount of $72,837. It was explained that although the $85~000 in construction appropriated in the 1983-84 Budget is enough to cover the contract cost, it was important to note that the City's financial obligation is actually greater 'than anticipated. The County required the developers of the Enea Plaza to contribute $25~000 in kind improvements and/or cash towards the construction of the traffic signal. The Enea developers installed $17~240 in improvements and deposited $7~760 in cash with the City. On motion of Cm. Hegarty~ seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council awarded bid to Rosenden Electric in the amount of $72,837 and authorized Mayor to execute contract on behalf of City. AWARD OF BID - CONTRACT #83-3 STREET NAME & APPROACH SIGNS & BUSINESS AREA STREET NUMBER SIGNS This project was approved as part of the 1983-84 Capital Improvement Budget. Subsequently the City Council authorized Staff 'to advertise for bids on this project. The City received two bids. The lowest bid was received from the Chrisp Company in the amount of $24~465. The total amount approved for this project in the 1983-84 budget was $25,000 (Contract - $22~700 & Engineering & Inspection - $2,300). CM-3-6 Regular Meeting January 9, 1984 Because the low bid exceeded the budgeted contract cost by $1,765, Staff recommended that the City Council authorize a budget transfer in the amount of $2~500 to cover the amount by which~the bid exceeded the budget and to provide a small contingent reserve to cover any unanticipated problems encountered in the field. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council 1) awarded bid to the Chrisp Company in the amount of $24,465; 2) authorized Mayor to execute contract on behalf of City; 3) authorize budget transfer in the amount of $2,500 from the Contingent Reserve ORDINANCE ADOPTING 1982 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE~ UNIFORM HOUSING CODE AND A PROCEDURE FOR ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS, SUBSTANDARD, OR ILLEGAL BUILDINGS This ordinancef as previously introduced contained an inadvertent omission. The current ordinance exempts certain non-electrical signs from the require- ment of permits. This has been added as a new item number 21 on the bottom of page 7. The following items are renumbered and a typographical error in the first paragraph of Section 12.1 was corrected by changing 20 to 18. Section 12.14 of the Ordinance requires the City 'to adopt a fee schedule. The proposed fee schedule imposes the same fees that are now in effect. However, 'the schedule has been rearranged and clarified by editorial changes. Section 17958 of the Health and Safety Code requires the City to adopt Ordinances which impose the same requirements as the regulations of the State Building Standards Code. The State Building Standards Code has adopted-the same codes as are contained in this Ordinance. Section 17958.5 of 'the Health and Safety Code provides that the City may make modifications to these codes as the City determines are reasonably necessary because of climate, geographical or topographical conditions on the basis of local conditions. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 2 - 84 ADOPT 1982 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, UNIFORM HOUSING CODE AND A PROCEDURE FOR ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS, SUBSTANDARD OR ILLEGAL BUILDINGS; adopted RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 84 FINDINGS AS TO WHY AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFORM CODES ARE NECESSARY; CM-3-7 Regular Meeting January 9, 1984 adopted RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 84 FEE SCHEDULE FOR BUILDING REGULATION PERMITS VILLAGE PARKWAY FENCING As requested by the City Council, a questionnaire was sent to all property owners adjacent to the west side of Village Parkway between Amador .Valley Boulevard and Kimball Avenue. A total of seventy one (71) properties were identified as being adjacent to the proposed project. The City received responses from fifty four (54) representing 76 percent of those which would be impacted. The use of the tax rolls to identify property owners resulted in three letters being returned, and Staff has been unable to identify the current property owner. The survey resulted in 50 being in favor of the fence replacement. Among those who supported the project, 5 indicated they would be willing to contribute a small amount of the cost. Four of the property owners who responded indicated 'they would be in favor of leaving the fence as is. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, based on the apparent support for the project, the City Council established a public hearing for Monday January 23, 1984. Council directed Staff to notify all of the affected property owners of the public hearing by registered mail. Staff was also directed to secure larger meeting facilities for this meeting. VECTOR CONTROL SERVICES PROPOSED COUNTY SERVICE AREA AND BENEFIT ASSESSMENT At its regular City Council meeting on December 12, 1984, a presentation was made by the Alameda County Health Care Services Agency. At the Board of Supervisors meeting on December 13, 1983, the Board adopted a resolution of application for the formation of a County Service Area for Vector Control. The City of Dublin now has the option of requesting inclusion in the service area. If the Council approves the sample resolutionf a confirming vote will be included.on the June ballot. Provided that a majority of voters in areas of the County requesting inclusion in the district approve the measurer the district will be formed effective July 1, 1984. Cities which do not request inclusion in the District will not have the measure on their ballots. This confirmation vote requires a majority of those voting and will apply to the entire proposed district. The Health Care Services Agency reported to the Board that in the past, vector control services have been cut back to a minimum, inadequate level. Vector control is not a state-mandated program and funding has diminished in order to fund programs which are mandated. CM-3-8 Regular Meeting January 9, 1984 Cm. Moffatt felt this program to be one of good preventive medicine. Cm Drena stated he felt it was not preventive at all, but rather only monitoring after the fact. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed the Mayor notify the Board of Supervisors of the City's decision NOT to be included in the special assessment district. In addition, correspondence should stress the expectation that the City will continue to receive the same level of service it presently receives. GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION - APRIL 10~ 1984 In accordance with City Council authorization to procure any supplies and services needed for the upcoming General Election, Staff has secured certain services from Sequoia Pacific~ an election supplier and consultant. Staff has also determined that it would be most expeditious to secure some services from the County Registrar of Voters (see attached Resolution and Exhibit A). In order for the City to request those services from the County, the City Council must adopt a resolution requesting the County Board of Supervisors to Permit the Registrar of Voters to provide those services to the.City. One of the services requested includes the recruitment of election officers. In order that the County may commence the recruitment of 'these officers, the City Council must fix compensation for election officers and polling places. The pay rates are in accordance with rates paid by the County in other elections. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 06 - 84 REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA TO RENDER SPECIFIED SERVICES TO SAID CITY RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 84 FIXING COMPENSATION FOR ELECTION OFFICERS TO CONDUCT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1984 CM-3-9 Regular Meeting January 9, 1984 CITY GOALS & OBJECTIVES During December of 1982, the City Council and Staff conducted a study session in order to develop City Goals & Objectives for. 1983. As a result of that meeting, a City Goals & Objectives Implementation Plan was developed. Last year, the City Council concurred that the Goals & Objectives session was a valuable tool in which to set City priorities. It seems appropriate to follow up with last years plan in terms of reviewing Staff's performance in accomplishing those goals set by the City Council last year. It would also seem appropriate to establish goals and objectives for the upcoming year. The City Council reaffirmed the desirability of continuing with the goals & objectives implementation plant and established the date of February 9th for conducting a study session to review 1983 Goals & Objectives and to estab- lish goals & objectives for 1984. Staff was directed to secure a meeting location. OTHER BUSINESS League of CA Cities Annual Conference The City Manager advised that a response had been received to the letter sent by the Dublin City Council criticizing the content of the last League Conference held in San Francisco in Octoberr 1983. The response invited representation from Dublin to attend an upcoming meeting. Mayor Snyder indicated he would take any specific comments or input to this meeting. Sphere of Influence Hearing City Manager Ambrose reminded the Council of the hearing date of January 18~ 1984 at the Pleasanton City Offices. Discussion was held related to the City Council's position on the proposed sphere. The City Council agreed to hold to its original position with the exclusion of the Triad Development on the easterly sphere line.. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to adjourned at 11:00 p.m. come before the Cou~il, the meeting was ATTEST ~ ~ ____ City C le~rk CM-3-10 Regular Meeting January 9, 1984